This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our
supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We
welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite
the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. To start a discussion of
this book, you can use the
Discussion form on the LINGUIST List website. For
the subject of the discussion, specify "Book Review" and the issue number of
this review. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for
the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and
follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the
book review staff directly.

In his book ''Analogy as structure and process'' Esa Itkonen presents a critical reevaluation of the concept of analogy which has played a prominent role in Western thought ever since Greek-Roman antiquity. He discusses the historical and theoretical implications of this concept mainly from a linguistic point of view, but also treats it from the perspective of other disciplines such as philosophy and cognitive science. His aim is ''to show [...] that analogy is THE central concept of language and linguistics.'' (6) Moreover, he intends to ''authenticate the usefulness of analogy as a methodological tool of contemporary research.'' (12)

The book contains a short introduction, four chapters with different thematic focuses as well as a chapter with concluding remarks and, finally, an appendix, where a formal approach to syntactic analogy is presented.

SUMMARY

The first chapter ''The concept of analogy'' gives a comprehensive overview over the different systematic aspects of analogy. Analogy as structure is contrasted to analogy as process: while the former is defined as a static relation between at least two systems, the latter is described as a dynamic relation producing analogical structures. Even though the chapter is of a mostly general character, many references are made to linguistics in order to underline the relevance of the concept for the study of language.

In section 1.1 analogy is introduced as a metarelation: it is a relation on an abstract level holding between at least two systems that, again, consist of relations between their elements (in the following, 'at least two systems' is referred to as 'two systems'). Analogy is, thus, based upon structural similarity between two systems, while contiguity is the relation between the elements of one system. Analogical relations may be characterized further by specifying the kind of similarity-relation they imply which can range from purely structural or formal similarity (e.g. mathematical analogies) to structural~functional similarity (e.g. anatomical analogies, where structural similarity is found to coincide with functional similarity). Moreover, Itkonen differentiates two types of analogy: static analogy comprises relations between given structures, while dynamic analogy refers to those cognitive processes which static analogies are established by.

After highlighting the context-dependency of analogy (1.2), a four-way taxonomy of the relations between analogous systems is presented in section 1.3. This provides a basis for distinguishing between discovery, invention/creation and imitation.

A distinction between two types of generalization is introduced in section 1.4. Generalization-1 describes the process of explaining a more abstract phenomenon B by means of analogizing it to the more concrete phenomenon A. Generalization-2, by contrast, consists in hypothesizing a common structure X underlying both phenomena A and B.

In section 1.5 the relations of dynamic analogy to various types of inference (induction, deduction, and abduction) are discussed. While deduction obviously differs from analogy, the distinction between analogy and induction is not so clear. Nevertheless, they are shown to be divergent cognitive operations because the latter is based upon material similarity between phenomena, while the former relies on structural similarity. Most intricate is the relation of analogy and abduction, since abduction always implies some kind of analogical reasoning, while dynamic analogy must basically be conceived of as an abductive process.

In section 1.6 analogy is contrasted to metaphor and cognitive blending. An analysis of the well-known metaphor ''TIME IS SPACE'' serves to demonstrate that linguistic metaphors generally contain several analogies, linked to one another in a kind of hermeneutic cycle. Metaphor as well as cognitive blending is defined as ''a subtype of analogy, or 'an analogy with added constraints': all metaphors are analogies, but not all analogies are metaphors.'' (41)

Subsequently, Itkonen discusses the issue of psychological adequacy of general linguistic descriptions and of analogy-based linguistic descriptions (1.7). With regard to synchronic linguistics, he advocates a clear division of labor between so-called autonomous linguistics and psycholinguistics, the former setting up hypothetical linguistic rules and the latter verifying experimentally their psychological adequacy. In a diachronic perspective, however, one has to rely upon other than the experimental methods of psycholinguistics to prove the psychological reality of theoretical constructs.

In section 1.8 human behavior is subdivided into instrumental and institutional behavior. Instrumental behavior comprises all forms of rational actions that presuppose a (free) choice between different means to achieve a certain goal; it is subject to rational analysis and explanation. By contrast, institutional or rule-governed behavior cannot be rationally explained, because the individual normally acts according to already existing and well-established rules and not according to rational choices. In synchronic linguistics the difference between instrumental and institutional behavior is instantiated by the difference between pragmatics (i.e. free rational linguistic behavior) on the one hand and morpho-syntax and semantics (i.e. rule-governed institutional behavior) on the other.

Section 1.9 deals with the problem of competing analogical interpretations of a given phenomenon. Analogical ambiguity results from the possibility to choose more than one adequate analogical model for the interpretation of a given phenomenon.

Up to this point the first chapter was entirely dedicated to highlighting the ubiquity of analogy in cognitive operations. In the last section 1.10, however, the author points out that there are necessarily 'limits of analogy': ''Analogy must (ultimately) rest on something non-analogical; otherwise there would be infinite regress.'' (63) In other words: even if we assign an absolutely central role to analogy in human intellectual life, supposing that it is involved in all types of invention and learning, analogical operations must be grounded on something else than analogy, e.g. innate basic concepts. Furthermore, they must be susceptible to be contrasted to non-analogical operations, e.g. induction, deduction, falsification, experimentation, etc.

The second chapter ''Analogy inside linguistics'' deals with the epistemological and methodological relevance of analogy in the different linguistic disciplines. Before turning to a detailed analysis of the role of analogy in linguistics, Itkonen confronts in section 2.2 the manifold objections against analogy that have been stated/expressed in modern linguistics. It is mainly in generativist linguistics that analogy has been explicitly banned as a relevant concept of linguistic theory. The author shows, however, that - in spite of the explicit exclusion of analogy - generativism is deeply indebted to the concept of analogy at the level of both theoretical and empirical research.

Section 2.3 outlines the importance of analogy as one of the foundational notions of structural phonology. N. Trubetzkoy introduced this notion as the organizing principle of phonological systems: phonemes are defined as bundles of distinctive features that are constituted by their similarities and differences with regard to the other elements of a given system. Itkonen points out that there are two types of relations between phonemes: they either stand in proportional opposition to each other (as in p:b = t:d = k:g) or in isolated opposition (as in k:s). Proportional oppositions are based on analogy and contribute to the coherence and, thus, to the stability of the whole system, while isolated oppositions do not have any relevance for the system.

In section 2.4 analogy is shown to play an equally important role in the organization of the morphological system of a given language. The Neogrammarian linguist H. Paul describes language as a system of word classes that are based on form and/or meaning associations. He distinguishes two types of classes: so-called 'material' and 'formal groups'. The former comprise all inflected instances of a single word, e.g. the complete declension of the Latin word 'arbor'. The latter, in contrast, are grammatical paradigms comprising all the instances of a whole word class in a certain case, e.g. all Latin nouns in the dative case. Whereas material groups are simply based on material identity, formal groups are organized by analogical relations between their elements that guarantee the coherence and the learnability of the system: ''Whatever else the inflectional morphology of a given language may be, it is certainly a system held together by crisscrossing analogies [...]. Otherwise, it would be simply impossible to learn and memorize such huge amounts of data'' (83).

As for the role of analogy in syntactic theory, things are a little bit more complicated. This is why Itkonen briefly analyzes in section 2.5 three different approaches to syntax, the Arabic tradition, generativist linguistics and cognitive linguistics, which all reveal a different account of the theoretical importance of analogy. To begin with the Arabic tradition of grammaticography, one of its central methodological notions is 'qiyás' which translates literally as 'measuring' and consists in discovering syntactic patterns by means of analogical reasoning. Analogy thus counts here as a central principle of describing syntactic structures. Generativist linguistics, on the contrary, exhibits an ambivalent attitude to analogy: while explicitly refuting this notion, generativists implicitly rely upon analogy when explaining even the most basic and simplest examples. What is true for the theoretical explanations also holds for the construction of the theory on a more general level. Itkonen points out that analogical reasoning plays a crucial role in the whole theoretical architecture, e.g. the analogy between deep structure and surface structure, the analogies established between different lexical categories, etc. In cognitive linguistics, more precisely in construction grammar, analogy finally plays again a major role with regard to both the alleged underlying linguistic structures and their linguistic descriptions. Basic verb-meanings, for instance, are thought to be extended to non-basic verb-meanings via analogy; the same holds for the extension of basic to non-basic construction-meanings.

In the domain of semantics (2.6), analogy has become an issue in the discussion of linguistic iconicity. Iconicity of language is a plain exemplification of analogy, since it implies two important theoretical claims: (1) there are structural similarities between non-linguistic (world/concepts) and linguistic entities, (2) the similarity-relation is directed from non-linguistic to linguistic entities, i.e. from world/concepts to language.

Section 2.7 deals with diachronic linguistics, which has traditionally made extensive use of the notion of analogy, in order to explain language change. This is also true with regard to the study of grammaticalization, a diachronic two-stage process consisting first in the reanalysis of a given linguistic unit and then its (analogical) extension. It has always been recognized that analogy is the driving force behind the extension of a given pattern. By confronting grammaticalization with the process of abduction (cf. 1.5), Itkonen shows, however, that analogy is important for both reanalysis and extension.

In section 2.8 the ''analogy between oral languages and sign languages'' (113) is discussed. Both oral and sign languages are said to be strictly symbolic in nature, even though they manifest a different degree of iconicity, sign languages being more iconic than oral languages. An exemplary analysis of the sentence-meaning 'N1 gave/showed N2 to N3' in Finnish Sign Language, Japanese, English, Latin, Finnish, West-Greenlandic, Wari', Swahili, Yagua, and Yimas serves to demonstrate that the analogy between oral and sign languages ''exists as a matter of fact'' (117). Chapter 2 is concluded with some remarks concerning analogy and language acquisition.

The third chapter ''Analogy and/or overlap between language and other cognitive domains'' deals with the pervasive structural similarities, i.e. analogies between language and other domains like images/pictures, vision, music, and logic. On the one hand, the chapter aims at providing arguments against the hypothesis of the 'modularity of the mind' (N. Chomsky, J. Fodor). On the other hand, the presented findings are to be considered as a contribution to the long-lasting debate in semiotics and philosophy of language about the relations between language and other symbolic systems. A central claim of the modularity-hypothesis is the modular encapsulation of language in the mind/brain with regard to other cognitive domains. Itkonen demonstrates, however, that this claim is untenable because there are evident structural similarities between language and world (= iconicity) as well as between language and other cognitive domains which, moreover, even partly overlap.

In section 3.2 the notion of iconicity that had previously been introduced (cf. 2.6) is discussed with regard to the modularity-hypothesis. Iconicity is per definition opposed to the concept of modularity and the alleged encapsulation of cognitive capacities, because an iconic relation necessarily involves two terms or entities, e.g. language and world. If the idea of iconicity could be proven to be true, the modularity-hypothesis would be proven to be wrong. But iconicity may also shed new light on the classical semiotic distinction between verbal and pictorial representation: ''the assumption of dual coding ('propositional vs. pictorial') [...] is misconceived, because propositional is pictorial: language imitates, and is a picture of, reality and assuming that the structure of thought imitates the structure of language, the former is a 'picture' of the latter.'' (136)

In section 3.3 it is shown that language and vision rely on analogous cognitive processes, inasmuch as linguistic and visual perception are holistically organized by 'Gestalts'. The analogy of language and vision, more precisely ''the ultimate unity of all types of perceptual experience'' (137) is again interpreted as an argument against the alleged modularity of the mind.

The same holds for the analogy of language and music, which in section 3.4 is first illustrated with regard to oral languages, e.g. by pointing to structural similarities of the respective syntactic constituent structure. Subsequently, the analogy between language and music is also extended to sign languages. These are, for instance, susceptible to a melodious use, which is analogous to humming in oral languages. However, Itkonen does not only claim that language and music synchronically bear upon common cognitive resources, he also suggests that they most probably have a common evolutionary origin. In section 3.5 he finally exhibits that language and logic have a common origin, more precisely that (formal) logic is originally derived from 'ordinary language'.

The fourth chapter ''Analogy (mainly) outside linguistics'' illustrates the central role analogy generally plays in human thinking. There are three main areas of interest for examining the role of analogy outside linguistics: commonsensical reasoning, mythological reasoning, and scientific reasoning. While common sense thinking is not treated, analogy in mythological and scientific reasoning is discussed in more detail. It is demonstrated that the allegedly clear line of demarcation between myth and science is getting blurred under the perspective of analogy.

Section 4.2 deals with the importance of analogy in myth and cosmology. Anthropological research has shown that binary classifications universally characterize mythological reasoning. Since binary classifications relate different entities in conceptual pairs according to structural similarities, they are chief examples of analogical reasoning. This kind of analogical conceptualization of the world is illustrated with the Tolkaappiyam, a Tamil grammar dating from 500-0 BCE. It does not only comprise grammatical descriptions, but also a poetological treatise. The treatise analogically relates language, poetry and social behavior to one another within the cosmology of the ancient Tamil culture.

Section 4.3 provides a whole range of examples to corroborate the hypothesis that analogy is a crucial mechanism in the process of scientific discovery. In the first subsection examples from the history of the natural sciences, philosophy, and technology illustrate the importance of analogy for scientific reasoning in general. A well-known analogy is the clockwork analogy that served J. Kepler to elucidate the functioning of heaven, while R. Descartes used it to explain the structure of the physical world. The second subsection discusses some famous linguistic analogies, for instance the analogical conception of language as an instrument (Plato, L. Wittgenstein) or as a game (F. de Saussure, L. Wittgenstein). The author concludes the chapter with some remarks as to the relevance of his findings for the philosophy of science.

In his concluding remarks the author restates his main theoretical claim: ''thinking is basically analogical.'' (199) The appendix, finally, contains the PROLOG program which formalizes the analogical inferences underlying the syntactic examples of section 2.5.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

Esa Itkonen's approach to analogy is very 'continental' in method and style. He investigates analogy in a systematic and historical perspective, i.e. by making reference to a whole range of major Western philosophers and linguists. I think that such a historical perspective is a fruitful way to reevaluate the foundational problems of theoretical linguistics. Retracing the history of a theoretical problem or concept may help to elude old and well-known fallacies and, hence, to restate the problem more clearly in modern terms. Still, it is mandatory not to indulge in merely listing all those thinkers, who have already treated a certain question. The historical perspective must rather be embedded into an systematic account of the theoretical problem. In his book Itkonen aptly combines the systematic and the historical approach and, therefore, provides a fresh and stimulating survey of the concept of analogy.

One of the most interesting aspects is the distinction between 'analogy as structure' and 'analogy as process', which is established in the first chapter. Itkonen very convincingly argues that it leads to important theoretical and methodological consequences. He shows, for instance, that some major methodological flaws in generativist linguistics are due to the lack of recognizing this distinction (72). In my opinion, the structure-process-distinction applies also to other linguistic phenomena and, hence, opens up some perspective for future theoretical research.

However, I would also like to add some critical remarks. The first concerns the theoretical and terminological delimitation of the treated phenomena, which are not always rigorously distinguished. Let's take, for instance, the difference between analogy and similarity. On the one hand, analogy is defined as a relation that is established between two entities on the basis of structural similarities (1.1). On the other hand, analogy is sometimes simply equated to (structural) similarity, e.g. in chapters 3 and 4. In my opinion, the difference between analogy and similarity should have been exposed more clearly. This could have been achieved, for instance, if it had explicitly been related to the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'structural' analogy.

A similar remark holds for the distinction between analogy, metaphor, and model. During the last decades these terms have been exhaustively discussed in linguistics (e.g. Ortony 1993), in philosophy of language (e.g. Black 1962, Ricoeur 1979), and even in philosophy of science (e.g. Hesse 1980). Much effort has been spent on their systematic distinction. Still, the distinction of analogy and metaphor, outlined in section 1.6, remains on a rather superficial level and is sometimes even completely abandoned in terms like ''analogy-as-metaphor'' (38). This is also true for the distinction between analogy and model (185, 191). Such terminological imprecisions sometimes contribute to the impression that the single chapters of the book are rather loosely connected to one another.

Finally, the text sometimes lacks theoretical justification as to the choice of theorists, whose positions are discussed. Although Itkonen has provided an all in all convincing combination of systematic and historical argumentation, this occasionally may convey an impression of arbitrariness. Furthermore, a few accounts of philosophical ideas either reveal a rather superficial analysis (e.g. the reference to Wittgenstein's 'picture theory', 115, 145) or they do not contribute to the central arguments of the text (e.g. the comment on Heidegger, note 12, 222).

The proofreading has been very good, since the book contains only a few typos. Yet, there are some inconsistencies between the references in the text and the bibliography, e.g. Wittgenstein (1969 [1921]) is not listed in the bibliography.

On the whole, the book is an absolutely inspiring and interesting read. It gives a broad overview over the concept of analogy and its theoretical and methodological implications. Itkonen persuasively shows that analogy is a ubiquitous phenomenon in human culture, particularly in language. It has wrongly been neglected by theoretical linguistics during the last decades. The book deals rather critically with regard to generativist linguistics, while it favors functional-typological approaches. However, it could be of interest for linguists from all theoretical schools, who are open to reconsidering certain theoretical problems and concepts in a broader philosophical perspective. Undoubtedly, linguists studying language from a cultural perspective will profit the most from Itkonen's reflections.

Mareike Buss is currently working as a teaching and research assistant at the Institute for Linguistics and Communication Studies (ISK), RWTH Aachen University, Germany. She is currently finishing her PhD thesis about 'iteration' as the central semiotic mechanism governing the interaction of language system and language use. Her research is concerned with usage-based models of language, functional theories of grammar, metaphorology and semiotics as well as the historiography of (modern) linguistics.
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue